Reply With Quote"The Beast of Redmond"? Ohhhh... it's a Register story. Might as well be an Onion story then.
http://www.theregister.com/content/6/34955.html
I'd like more confirmation of this.... but if true, it shows once again what idiots vast corporations can be. :roll:In what could easily be mistaken for an Onion story, Microsoft has unleashed the full fury of its lawyers on 17-year-old Canadian high-school student, Mike Rowe, demanding the handover of his Internet domain.
The domain? MikeRoweSoft.com. No, seriously.
Victoria-based Mike is currently studying maths and chemistry and plans to study computer science at Victoria University next year. He registered the domain in August because he thought it would be cool to have a site that sounded like the famous company to show his Web designing skills.
The Beast of Redmond however reckons that the phonetic domain infringes its copyright and insists Mike hand it over or face the consequences.
"The Beast of Redmond"? Ohhhh... it's a Register story. Might as well be an Onion story then.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/London...19/317906.html
Canadian press version. It appears to be true.
I love the lawfirm name: Smart & Biggar!! :lol:"Since my name is Mike Rowe, I thought it would be funny to add 'soft' to the end of it," the Victoria Grade 12 student said.
But the folks at the world's biggest software company aren't smiling. They've demanded he give up his domain name.
Mike, a self-described computer geek, registered the name in August. In November, he received a letter from Microsoft's Canadian lawyers, Smart & Biggar, informing him he was committing copyright infringement.
He was advised to transfer the name to the corporation.
"I didn't think they would get all their high-priced lawyers to come after me," Rowe said.
He wrote back, saying he'd put a lot of time and effort into his business and asked to be compensated if he was to give up his name.
Microsoft's lawyers wrote back offering him $10 US.
Rowe asked for $1,000.
Okay, this is sort of silly. Arguing that people might confuse the domain based on phonetics is absurd, since you have to type out a domain name to visit the domain. I can't imagine how anyone wanting to visit the Microsoft website could accidentally end up at the MikeRoweSoft website, much less confuse the one with the other (which is what MS would have to demonstrate as likely in order to win this suit).
I totally disagree, because the names sound the same. Mike can walk around telling people he's "President of development at MikeRoweSoft" if he wants to, and nobody could do anything about it. Obviously if he ever had to write it down, maybe the jig would be up, but given that he can say the name and totally confuse people, I think there's a legitimate issue.Originally Posted by Ben Sones
And obviously it doesn't matter that he's 17 or still in school. I don't even see why that's part of the story. To me, this makes total sense: maybe he means the whole thing as a joke, but it's a joke that could have consequences for MS if they don't take action about it. Do they sue him? Do they ask for a million dollars in damages? No. The write him a letter and say "Hey, you better transfer that domain to us, it infringes our copyright." He says "OK, but give me A THOUSAND DOLLARS FIRST, AH HA HA!" and they say "Fuck you, but we'll give you $10" (the reg fee?). How is Microsoft the bad guy here? It's Mike Rowe who tried to get them to cough over a thousand bucks.
Its his damn name. Like you said, they threatened him first.
Okay, but I could do that, too, and without even owning the MikeRoweSoft domain. So what? Nobody is going to believe me, any more than they would believe him. And if they have doubts, they could just ask for proof. Which, of course, neither of us have.
Trademark law exists to allow companies to distinguish their goods or services from other companies. What possible scenario could this kid initiate with his tongue-in-cheek domain name that would cause people to mistake his domain for Microsoft's in any meaningful way? I can't think of one. It's not like he's going to stop someone on the street, announce that he is the president of Microsoft ("MikeRoweSoft"), and in some sort of sitcom-esque twist of mutual misunderstanding land a venture capital deal or a business contract that should have actually gone to the real Microsoft. The very idea is absurd, and so is this lawsuit.
It's part of the story because it makes the sort of misunderstanding that you suggested even less likely to happen. I mean, is anyone seriously going to believe that a 17-year old student is the president of Microsoft, even if he tries to encourage such a misunderstanding?And obviously it doesn't matter that he's 17 or still in school.
Like what?To me, this makes total sense: maybe he means the whole thing as a joke, but it's a joke that could have consequences for MS if they don't take action about it.
It's not like he is a domain squatter. He didn't register the domain and park it, and then go over to Microsoft to extort cash out of them. He registered it for himself, with a name that he thought was clever, for his own use. Microsoft approached him and asked him to give up the domain, and he asked to be compensated for it. I would too, frankly. Swtiching domains is a pain in the ass, and not because you have to pay $10 to register a new one. It also means a new email address, new website URLm etc.Do they sue him? Do they ask for a million dollars in damages? No. The write him a letter and say "Hey, you better transfer that domain to us, it infringes our copyright." He says "OK, but give me A THOUSAND DOLLARS FIRST, AH HA HA!" and they say "Fuck you, but we'll give you $10" (the reg fee?). How is Microsoft the bad guy here? It's Mike Rowe who tried to get them to cough over a thousand bucks.
Given that this kid has probably gotten a shitload of "micro" jokes made at his expense ever since his peers figured out that male self-esteem is tied to the size of a body appendage, and that the opposition is a multinational corporation that's in a huff over phonics, I'll cut the kid a little slack. Also, since the kid wants to be associated even more closely with a name that not only reinforces the assumed size of an appendage, but also a particularly non-impressive state of implied appendage, I think I'll say, "Knock yourself out kid." :wink:
[quote="Ben Sones"]Okay, but I could do that, too, and without even owning the MikeRoweSoft domain. So what? Nobody is going to believe me, any more than they would believe him. And if they have doubts, they could just ask for proof. Which, of course, neither of us have. [quote]
Unfortunately for Mike Rowe, that's not the test. I mean, by that metric, I could send out a resume saying I'm a reseller for Microsoft so people should pay me for these copies of XP that I burned. Because nobody's going to believe me, and if they do, they can just ask for proof, which I don't have. That's not the way it works. A company doesn't have to wait until someone has a foolproof way to infringe on their copyright or trademark before they take action.
How about this: Mike Rowe sees an ad for a computer company looking for a developer. He calls the recruiter and says "I used to work in development at MikeRoweSoft. I'm interested in coming over to your company." Maybe the whole thing falls through because the company asks for a resume or some "proof" that he used to work at Microsoft. But maybe not--if it's a small developer, they might just bring him in, interview him, and hire him. He's now obtained something of value (a job) by falsely trading on Microsoft's good name. I could come up with a dozen other examples like this. It doesn't mean that Mike Rowe intends to do this and it doesn't mean that it's 100% likely, or even 50% likely, that such a scheme would work. All it means is that there's a possibility that somebody might be confused.What possible scenario could this kid initiate with his tongue-in-cheek domain name that would cause people to mistake his domain for Microsoft's in any meaningful way? I can't think of one.
I don't see how anyone can reasonably tell me that someone can name a computer-related entity with a name that is a homonym for "Microsoft," and there's NO POSSIBILITY of confusion. That's just crazy.
Of course not. But would they believe that he was a programmer there? What happens in 10 years when he's 27 and says he was in middle management? What happens in 20 years when he's 37 and says he ran a department?I mean, is anyone seriously going to believe that a 17-year old student is the president of Microsoft, even if he tries to encourage such a misunderstanding?
Like he starts sowing confusion with the name. Like some other company springs up called "Macrosoft" and when MS tries to scotch the name, Macrosoft argues in their court papers that MS was aware of a company called "MikeRoweSoft" and didn't do anything about it, and have therefore abandoned the mark at least insofar as homonyms are concerned. I'm not even an IP lawyer and the possible consequences are fairly apparent. I'm sure MS is acting out of an abundance of caution, but it's not like this is irrational. If I were them, I would ask for the domain too. There's too much at stake not to.Like what?To me, this makes total sense: maybe he means the whole thing as a joke, but it's a joke that could have consequences for MS if they don't take action about it.
Give me a break. I'm sure it's true that he didn't do this intending to extort money. But there's no way he's incurring $1,000 of inconvenience to give up this name that is supposed to just be a big joke anyway. The kid is obviously trying to realize an unjust gain by asking for $1,000. Maybe he just came up with the plan after MS approached him, but that doesn't make it any less of an asshole move.Microsoft approached him and asked him to give up the domain, and he asked to be compensated for it. I would too, frankly. Swtiching domains is a pain in the ass, and not because you have to pay $10 to register a new one. It also means a new email address, new website URLm etc.
Okay, a disclaimer: I don't know how it works, specifically. I have a limited knowledge of trademark law. However, my point was that, in the case of your example, owning the MikeRoweSoft domain does not increase his chances of successfully infringing on their trademark. He doesn't need to own the domain to do what you said (go out on the street and claim to be affilitated with Microsoft). Owning the domain does not make it any more likely that people will believe him. I understand that an infringement doesn't have to be foolproof before it's legally challengeable, but surely it has to present some increased risk of brand confusion.
Here again, how does the domain raise his chaces of pulling off such a deception? If I went in and did the same thing, with no domain, I'd get the same results. Maybe they'd check and see that I lied, or maybe they'd take my word for it, and assume that I'm telling the truth. The fact that Mike Rowe has a domain called MikeRoweSoft doesn't skew the potential outcome one way or the other, so I fail to see how this scenario is relevant. You seem to be saying that the mere fact that Mike Rowe owns a domain that sounds phonetically similar is an infringement because he could falsely trade on Microsoft's good name, even though the domain itself doesn't help him do that, and even though he could do exactly the same thing--with an equal chance for success--without the domain. That makes no sense, lawyer-boy. If that's how trademark law really works, then the law is wrong.How about this: Mike Rowe sees an ad for a computer company looking for a developer. He calls the recruiter and says "I used to work in development at MikeRoweSoft. I'm interested in coming over to your company." Maybe the whole thing falls through because the company asks for a resume or some "proof" that he used to work at Microsoft. But maybe not--if it's a small developer, they might just bring him in, interview him, and hire him.
Could you come up with any that demonstrate a legitimate trademark infringement? Because I don't see how the example above covers that.I could come up with a dozen other examples like this.
Yeah, I get that. But surely you have to demonstrate some sort of increased liklihood for confusion. All of your current examples for ways in which Mike Rowe could falsely trade on Microsoft's name don't rely on the domain, or even benefit from it.It doesn't mean that Mike Rowe intends to do this and it doesn't mean that it's 100% likely, or even 50% likely, that such a scheme would work. All it means is that there's a possibility that somebody might be confused.
I honestly can't think of any way in which someone might meaningfully confuse this guy's personal homepage with the largest software company in the world.I don't see how anyone can reasonably tell me that someone can name a computer-related entity with a name that is a homonym for "Microsoft," and there's NO POSSIBILITY of confusion. That's just crazy.
What does any of that have to do with it? The question is not "could Mike Rowe falsely claim to be affilitated with Microsoft?" The answer to that question is "yes, hypothetically," whether he owns that domain or not. The pertinent question is "would owning the website MikeRoweSoft.com make it any easier for him to do that?" I don't see how it would.Of course not. But would they believe that he was a programmer there? What happens in 10 years when he's 27 and says he was in middle management? What happens in 20 years when he's 37 and says he ran a department?
It's not a company--it's his personal homepage. He says he put it up to show off his HTML skills.Like he starts sowing confusion with the name. Like some other company springs up called "Macrosoft" and when MS tries to scotch the name, Macrosoft argues in their court papers that MS was aware of a company called "MikeRoweSoft" and didn't do anything about it, and have therefore abandoned the mark at least insofar as homonyms are concerned.
He says he did it because he felt that the $10 they offered him was an insult. Does he really want $1000 for the domain? I have no idea. At this point he might, just as a matter of principle. What right does Microsoft have to come and tell him to give up his personal domain for no good reason, and then add insult to injury by effectively saying "Here's a penny for your trouble, loser!" $10 is not a reasonable compensation for ditching a domain, by any metric. That doesn't mean the domain is worth $1000, but the $10 offer was clearly meant to be insulting, and I think it's totally understandable that he got pissed off and countered with an equally ridiculous offer.Give me a break. I'm sure it's true that he didn't do this intending to extort money. But there's no way he's incurring $1,000 of inconvenience to give up this name that is supposed to just be a big joke anyway. The kid is obviously trying to realize an unjust gain by asking for $1,000. Maybe he just came up with the plan after MS approached him, but that doesn't make it any less of an asshole move.
"Soft" isn't his name. He says in the story he wanted it to sound like Microsoft, which is a smoking gun if this thing ever goes to trial.
I'm not sure how the "competitive in the same field" thing works out; he might be ok under that.
If the law supports Microsoft in this then the law sucks.
It's a smoking gun pointing at nothing. He is not running a business. He's not selling a similar product that people might mistakenly assume is affiliated with Microsoft--he's not selling anything at all. Trademark law exists to protect a business' right to distinguish its brand from other similar products, not to allow businesses to bully individuals for no good reason.
But under ICANN rules he did the big no-no. He offered it to them, only if they paid higher than the market value. Under ICANN rules, once you do that, you are screwed. He would have done better just to say no.
He created the name ot purposefully dilute the microsoft trademark by trying to confuse people and then tried to make a financial gain off the use. Who cares if he is 17, you simply can't do that. And it seems he has admitted to all of it.
Chet
I think you're mistaken. If he just goes out (or I just go out) and call some company and say "I work for Microsoft," I can get in trouble. Because I don't work for Microsoft, so that could be considered fraud or maybe even trademark infringement (although I'm not sure on that last one). OTOH, if I work for "MikeRoweSoft" and I tell people I work for MikeRoweSoft, where's the fraud? I'm telling the truth. I do work for MikeRoweSoft. What can Microsoft's complaint about that possibly be, other than that it infringes on their mark?
The same argument goes for the entire rest of your post, which all boils down to "I don't see how owning MikeRoweSoft makes it any easier to pretend you have something to do with Microsoft." The problem is that if nobody does anything about MikeRoweSoft, Mike Rowe can legitimately tell people that he works for MikeRoweSoft. He can legitimately tell people that he's MikeRoweSoft certified in networking, or whatever it is that Microsoft also happens to certify. The only possible complaint MS can make is that he's trading unfairly on their name.
As I understand it, you have the facts backwards. MS told him to transfer the domain to them, and he, as an opening offer, demaneded $1000, to which MS responded that they would pay him $10. So if anyone is being an insulting dickhead, it's Mike Rowe. Your argument that "maybe he doesn't really want that much" falls pretty short IMO. He asked for $1000 and I'm sure he would have taken it if they had agreed to pay. He's clearly just trying to extract nuisance money from MS. And I feel like your reaction is just part of this anti-MS bias people have. For example, you're quick to condemn MS for making an "insulting" $10 initial offer, but (putting aside the fact that it didn't even happen that way) it's not like it would ever occur to you to think "Oh, but that's okay, because maybe MS really intends to pay more than that."He says he did it because he felt that the $10 they offered him was an insult. Does he really want $1000 for the domain? I have no idea. At this point he might, just as a matter of principle. What right does Microsoft have to come and tell him to give up his personal domain for no good reason, and then add insult to injury by effectively saying "Here's a penny for your trouble, loser!" $10 is not a reasonable compensation for ditching a domain, by any metric. That doesn't mean the domain is worth $1000, but the $10 offer was clearly meant to be insulting, and I think it's totally understandable that he got pissed off and countered with an equally ridiculous offer.
Edit: Let me make clear, I don't think what this guy did is some awful thing. It's not like he put up a super-confusing name like "Micrrosoft" or something like that, and it doesn't look like he was intending to sell stuff using MikeRoweSoft (although who knows what eventually might have happened). But joke or not, minor or not, it's still an infringement and MS has to defend their mark if they want it to remain viable under US law. I think their response here was totally appropriate: they just write the guy a letter and say "Hey, you can't do that." It's not like they sue him (contrary to the thread title). It's not like they say they want him to pay damages. They just want the domain. Obviously things get a little more snippy after he demands $1000, but I think that's understandable.
This is just ludicrous. Word of mouth is worth nothing when you're trying to get a job. It's not like you can just say "Yes, I'm MikeRoweSoft certified" and have a job offered to you. Any company is going to want to see a resume, and probably said certificate. So while it might sound the same, there's no real way such a mistake could be made.The same argument goes for the entire rest of your post, which all boils down to "I don't see how owning MikeRoweSoft makes it any easier to pretend you have something to do with Microsoft." The problem is that if nobody does anything about MikeRoweSoft, Mike Rowe can legitimately tell people that he works for MikeRoweSoft. He can legitimately tell people that he's MikeRoweSoft certified in networking, or whatever it is that Microsoft also happens to certify. The only possible complaint MS can make is that he's trading unfairly on their name.
This is ridiculous, through and through.
CNN says:
Register says:He wrote back asking to be compensated for giving up his name. Microsoft's lawyers offered him $10 in U.S. funds. Then he asked for $10,000.
WTF? Microsoft low-balls their offer to $10, he says $10,000 so they slap him with a lawsuit?Microsoft, with its case bolstered, declined and Mike heard no more until 14 January when a 25-page letter and book were Fed-Ex’ed to his house explaining why he would have to hand over the domain, stating he had intended all along to sell the domain for profit and that his domain would confuse Microsoft customers.
I dunno, Rywill, you're a lawyer, so maybe some of this stuff you gloss over as "standard adversarial language" or what not, but to me, and other people, they're "outright lies from a corporation with really mean lawyers." Just because they HAVE the money for the really mean lawyers doesn't mean that they should win by default.
I can't really believe that you, as an attorney, believe your own argument here. If I tell someone, I work for "MikeRoweSoft" with the intention of making them believe that I work for "Microsoft," that's out-and-out fraud in any state that I know of. The same applies to the "MikeRoweSoft" certified argument. And as the previous post point out, this is just a straw-man argument anyway. All a potential employer has to do is ask to see the Certification diploma.
Maybe he'll be allowed to keep the domain if he promises to do all his Web development with MS Front Page.
Sure. But the problem is that it becomes that harder to prove fraud if you let the name go. If I have no connection to anything remotely like Microsoft and say I work for Microsoft, it's a slam-dunk case. If I work for MikeRoweSoft, it's going to be a lot harder to convince a jury that it's fraud, because I'm going to go up and down saying "But I do work for MikeRoweSoft. That's my company's name. It's registered and everything." At the end of the day, I think you're right--it's fraud anyway. But why should Microsoft make it any more difficult for that fraud to be litigated? So that Mike Rowe can enjoy his joke? Should they be required to wait to see if he actually starts saying he's with MikeRoweSoft (and hope that they find out about it) rather than telling him he can't use that name as soon as they realize he's registered it? And what about claims that they've abandoned the mark? What happens when Macrosoft.com gets registered, MS complains, and Macrosoft argues that they abandoned their mark when they heard about MikeRoweSoft and decided to let it go? Again, maybe at the end of the day MS would win that argument, but it's a lot harder (and a lot more expensive) to win if you keep having to fight off this colorable claim that you blew your rights. Why should MS incur that expense?
On the money issue, I was mistaken: MS asked him to stop using the name, and he said he wanted to be "compensated." At which point they offered him the $10 it cost him to register it in the first place, and he said he wanted either $1000 or $10,000, depending on which story you read. I still say that the dickhead here is Mike Rowe. If MS had sued him right off the bat (and they still haven't sued him AFAIK, despite what everyone's saying--it's all just letters back and forth) that would be lame. But they didn't, and he's the one who brought up the whole "If you want me to stop using your name, you better cough over some cash" garbage. Sorry, but Mike Rowe has little sympathy from me. If he had made the joke website and then given it back to MS, fine. Funny. What a clever guy. But that's not what happened.
I don't agree. If he goes into an interview and says "Oh, I also just got MikeRoweSoft certified in X," I'm not sure people would demand to see a certificate. I'm sure some people would. I'm sure some people would check. Like I said before, that doesn't matter, because all that matters is whether some people wouldn't check, and I'm sure some wouldn't. And this is just one example. Suppose he starts his own business, like a consulting firm, and tells people he used to work at MikeRoweSoft or is certified by MikeRoweSoft? Do you think those people are going to check? I don't. Again, yeah, if he intends for them to misunderstand him, that's fraud. The trick is in convincing a bunch of people that he intended that, when he's going to say "But I didn't intend that. This is just what my company's name happens to be. Microsoft knows about it, and they let me keep it."
So much for the "MyCrowSoft" rooster-imitation software planned by Many Jars, Inc.
Really? Then I just might have to start my own business...Suppose he starts his own business, like a consulting firm, and tells people he used to work at MikeRoweSoft or is certified by MikeRoweSoft? Do you think those people are going to check? I don't.
I'll e-mail Mike Rowe, and see if he'll certify me. I bet he will. He seems like a nice guy.
If I recall my law school equity course correctly, injunctions aren't issued to prevent someone from engaging in future, hypothetical illegal behavior. And that's really all Microsoft has going for it here. He might potentially attempt to fraudulently trade on Microsoft's name sometime in the future. There is no present evidence that he has any intention of doing so whatsoever. And note, that the only potential source of confusion is if his domain name is used orally. In fairness I have to note, as you point out, that Microsoft hasn't sought an injunction, at least not yet. So far, except for the rather ludicrous monetary negotiations (and I don't agree the fault's all on Mike Rowe's side; if they had made a good faith offer to begin with, we wouldn't be having this conversation), this whole thing is hypothetical.
FWIW, I think "Macrosoft.com" is a very different case from "MikeRoweSoft.com". The former, on its face, carries a high potential for confusion. You have to look at it carefully to see the difference. Not so with this guy's domain.
I doubt MS would seek an injuction. I'm pretty sure you can get an injunction to prevent future illegal behavior, although it's very difficult (e.g., government trying to restrain newspapers from printing secret documents that were leaked to them. In fact, one of the big cases on injunctive relief involves a guy who wanted to enjoin a police department from using choke-holds on him in the future. Although the case was decided against him on the facts precisely because he couldn't prove the choke holds would be used on him in the future, IIRC the opinion left it fairly clear that with better factual evidence, he could have won). But they don't need to seek an injunction, because there's already (at least in their mind, and in mine as well) a present trademark violation. And I'd point out that if they wanted to, MS could sue and probably get damages. IIRC statutory damages for trademark violation are $500 to $500,000 per mark, regardless of whether you intended to violate the mark or had any bad faith. MINIMUM $500 per mark.
As for the offer they made, I still think it's fine. How is $10--in other words, putting you back even--not a reasonable offer to someone who clearly registered this name because he's imitating your trademark? Like Jason said, this guys name is not Mike Rowe Soft. He's calling his company MikeRoweSoft because it sounds like Microsoft. (And it is a company; he's running a webpage business under the name.) Why is Mike Rowe entitled, in good faith, to extra money just because his name sounds like "micro"?
I agree that "Macrosoft" is a worse case than "MikeRoweSoft." My point is just that once a company lets a trademark infringement go, it becomes that much harder to prosecute any other infringement. Sure, MS's lawyers could argue "Well, we thought MikeRoweSoft was just a joke. And it's not as close to our name as 'Macrosoft' is." But like I said, why have the argument to begin with? It's an argument that could end up costing them tens of thousands of dollars in litigation costs, easily. Why should they do it? It doesn't make any sense.
Ah, it warms my heart to start another mess! 8)
Is Rywill angling for a "Microsoft" job? Or is he already a corporate lawyer? Such zealous pursuit of a 17 year old must be rewarded!
C'mon, the kid meant no harm, he was just funnin' around! That's what kids do! (And "Microsoft's" lowball offer of $10 is typical.) Of course, they were probably just trying to entrap the kid. Shameful but normal for them.
And like I said, if MS had lead off with a lawsuit--which they very well might have won--I would say they suck. If they had written to Mike Rowe and he had said "Okay, I was just kidding around, here's your domain back," I would have no problem with him. That's how this story should have gone: kid registers funny but infringing name; company says "Okay, ha ha, but you can't do that," kid says "Okay, fine." Where does real life take a left turn from that story? At the point where Mike Rowe says "Okay, fine...if you give me some money." And MS says "Okay, we'll pay you what it cost you to get into this." And he says "Oh, no, I don't think so. Let's try a hundred times what I'm out of pocket."
Yeah, I'm sure they used their orbital mind-control lasers to make him register that domain name. And to then ask for money. And to then refuse their offer to put him back even. They're right bastards, those sleazebags at Micro$oft.Of course, they were probably just trying to entrap the kid. Shameful but normal for them.
He he he.... well, we'll see how it turns out. If MS gave a damn about their image....
(Oh, the entrap part refers to offering him $10, and he asks for $1000, thus making it seem he did it all for profit when he didn't know the ICANN rules. They are right sleazy convicted monopolists, not that it makes any diff.)
To see how another group of people handled similar heavy-handed lawyers, check out the "Ulysses for Dummies" website.
http://www.bway.net/~hunger/litigation.html
It's pretty funny. ("Ulysses for Dummies" itself (the above link is just to the legal wrangling) is also funny)
Gav
PS I'm just idly wondering whether, say, "Trend Micro" should enjoin him for ever using his name for anything, ever.
Bueller? Beuller? Er... I mean Derek?
Posting Permissions